The more I look at this new proposed MIN93 site, the more I realise that a lot of things don't add up with regards to the sizes and yields that have been quoted.

The maths that's being employed behind the scenes, whether it's by Savills, the land owner, or both is either very creative in its nature, or else it's just downright incompetent.

In the original draft of the fabled Blue Book, Savills told us that the site was 11.32 hectares in size. However, the accompanying map showed a site closer to 33 hectares.

In a later amendment to the blue book, the site size was amended to 33.79 hectares. A figure that would appear to be more or less in line with the original map.

However, on July 7th 2008, we learned that Savills have submitted a new amended map, effectively slicing the site in half, and reducing the area to 18.26 hectares.

So that means that to date, we have been presented with three different estimates on how big the site will be, ranging from 11.32 hectares, through 18.26 hectares to 33.79 hectares.
I'm sure you'll agree that this is a wildly varying range of estimates, and at no time in the process so far have the quoted site sizes published on NCC's website actually tied up with the maps they're displaying.

Now it's it's interesting to note that all throughout this process, the expected yield from the MIN93 site has been quoted at 1 million tonnes of gravel. This figure has not changed proportionally as the site size was reduced and increased.
For example, if a 33.79 hectare site can produce 1 million tonnes of gravel, it stands to reason that if you reduce that site to 18.26 hectares it will only produce 550000 tonnes of gravel. Likewise, the same site reduced to 11.32 hectares will only produce 330000 tonnes.
Surely this is proof if proof were needed that someone is not being 100% open and honest with the facts and figures that they're feeding to the public.

The Save Pentney Action Group has in its library of documents, a geological survey map of Pentney and the surrounding environs. This map shows the gravel seam under the MIN93 site to be on average 6.8m deep. Using some rather simple and basic maths, we can come to a few conclusions based on the information we have at hand.

First of all lets define a few variables. We're looking at an extraction of 1 million tonnes of gravel. Now if we arbitrarily assume the odd 0.8m is the topsoil which will have to be stripped back before excavation takes place, we're looking at the gravel seam having an average thickness of 6 metres. Now, we can also say that 1 tonne of washed and refined gravel takes up 0.6 cubic metres. But the gravel below Pentney is not pure, it needs to be washed, graded and have impurities removed, so for every tonne of pure gravel extracted, we're probably looking at a nice round figure of 1 cubic metre - for the sake of argument anyway. So, we're looking at an excavation of approximately 1000000 cubic metres. If we divide this one million cubic metres by our average depth of 6 metres, we get 166666.6 square metres. Now 1 Hectare is 10000 square metres, so that means a site of approximately 16.6 hectares will be required to extract the 1 million tonnes.

Bear in mind that these calculations are approximate, as it's impossible to say for certain what percentage of the extracted material is gravel and what's dirt to be washed away. Also bear in mind that everything in quarrying and mining is based on approximate figures, estimations and best guesses by very experienced and expensive people. Nothing is certain until you start digging the stuff up out of the ground. But it's interesting to note that Savills originally claimed a site size of 11.32 hectares, we currently have a site size of 18.26 hectares, and this calculation suggests it will take 16.6 hectares to extract the required 1 million tonnes. Just nicely in between the two figures. Depending on the purity of the gravel, and the consistency of that 6.8m depth, it's entirely conceivable that 1 million tonnes of gravel could come out of 11.32 hectares, or equally it could require all of the currently quoted 18.26 hectare site.

So, 20 minutes with a calculator, a ruler and a map has enabled us to clear away some of the smoke and mirrors that Savills and the land owners have erected around this site, and we now have a much clearer picture of what they really want.

It raises the question. Why are they employing tactics designed specifically to confuse and obfuscate?
In any other set of circumstances, and if we were dealing with anybody other than Savills, I would have put it down to simple incompetence. But that's not how Savills operate. They're a highly professional and efficient company who don't tend to make mistakes.
So we're left with three possible options. Either they are employing a strategy of orchestrated public confusion - or - The land owners are feeding them with incorrect data - or - Norfolk County Council are mis-interpreting the data released by Savills and making errors in their publications.